ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2016
Evaluation of popular drug information resources on clinically useful and actionable pharmacogenomic information.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tertiary drug information sources for treatment and prevention of COVID-19.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
- Experience, Knowledge, and Perceptions of Pharmacogenomics among Pharmacists and Nurse Practitioners in Alberta Hospitals.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Man vs. machine: comparison of pharmacogenetic expert counselling with a clinical medication support system in a study with 200 genotyped patients.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022Article
- Review
- Prevalence of clinically actionable genotypes and medication exposure of older adults in the community.Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPharmacogenomics is the study of how genes affect a person's response to drugs. This descriptive study assessed whether popular drug information resources provide clinically useful pharmacogenomic (PGx) information.
methodsFour resources (package inserts, Lexicomp, Micromedex 2.0, and Epocrates) were evaluated for information about twenty-seven drugs.
resultsThere was wide variability of PGx information. Whereas Lexicomp included relevant PGx biomarker information for all 27 drugs, Epocrates did in less than 50% of the drugs. None of the resources had monographs that fully incorporated Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) recommendations in more than 30% of the drugs.
conclusionLexicomp appears to be most useful PGx drug information resource, but none of the resources are sufficient.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.